Oedipus the Kingby Sophocles

Directed and translated by Clive Madel

21-28 March 2009 (7 performances)

Oedipus the King is
the story of a man whose destiny was determined at birth. It is the
story of a man treated as a mere plaything of the gods. It is a story
of fear and betrayal, of incest and murder, of suicide and horrific
mutilation...

Clive Madel's production of Sophocles'
play Oedipus the King at the Edward Alderton Theatre is
ambitious but rewarding and, as such, proved an enjoyable evening, writes
Steve Spencer.

The play - in a new translation by the
director - centres on the growing realization by Oedipus, now King of
Thebes, that he himself is the cause of the plague which has beset the
Theban people since the murder of King Laius. At the start of the
drama he denounces the killer and follows a relentless and obsessive
quest to root out and punish the cursed individual. Informed by the
words of prophecy and testimony, Oedipus soon pieces together the
sorry events of his past life and tragically concludes that Apollo's
prophecy at his birth, whereby he will kill his father and marry his
mother and bear her children, has been fulfilled. Distraught and
revolted by his guilt he plunges pins into his eyes and seeks
banishment far from civilized society. In one day Oedipus has shifted
from the most popular to the most despised man in Thebes; from a
wealthy, powerful king to a reviled, impotent exile.

Steve Padgham plays Oedipus with great
conviction and delivers a credible and enlightening performance. His
anger and fury as accusations fly are matched by moments of tenderness
as he realizes exile means the loss of his daughters forever. Eileen
Warner plays his loyal wife, Jocasta, whose revulsion at the moment of
discovery that her husband is in fact her son, is palpable.

Most characters are well played and it
is refreshing to see many roles (some non-speaking) competently
undertaken by young EAT members. Special mention should be given to
the women playing the chorus whose clarity and rhythm do justice to
the text. The production is complemented by a stark monochromatic set
dominated by huge blood-red doors to the palace (thanks again to Clive
Madel's handiwork) and thoughtful costume design. What a pity Oedipus
the King is not playing to a full house: great drama in the hands
of a reliable and accessible production deserves to be seen.

Edward Alderton Theatre took on a huge challenge when bringing
Oedipus the King to the Bexleyheath stage. Sadly, its impressive set and staging
cannot hide fluffed lines and performances, writes Andrew Hodgson.

The Edward Alderton Theatre production of
Sophocles' Oedipus picks up the story from his ascension to the throne.
He lives with his beautiful wife Jocasta and children and is happy. What he does
not realise is the tragic truth tainting all that is his. His world comes crashing down as he learns of the horrors which bore him to this
point. The facts trickle agonizingly from the lips of those who know shards of
this truly ignorantly sinful existence. He has killed his father and taken his throne; he has married the
man's wife, who is his mother, and bred four children by her in the same bed which
he himself was created in, of this same woman.

Oedipus enters kitted out in yacht attire. The chorus wear all black with lace
white ruffs, the messenger wears a full tuxedo and Jocasta wears an oddly
Grecian toga which jars with the rest of the cast, yet fits within the
impressive set which is ornate and extravagant. Naturalist in approach, it is
all red curtains and marble plinths, dominated by a table centre stage, the
smell of incense is thick in the air. Two guards wear strange bellboy-red waistcoats and seem to not
really know why they are there.

After being met with such impressive set design it is extremely disappointing to
be met with such slack acting. Not a single cast member could remember their lines; instead of the words of
Creon, I overheard backstage again: "He's bodged it again." Steve Padgham as Oedipus spluttered his lines like Bogart after a few too many
espressos, although I did enjoy the scene in which he blinds himself. Reminiscent of some horror B-movie, as the
lightning flashes of crimson and a backing track of 1980s electro-organs play
him in, he screams and blood splatters. It was as if Bella Lugosi had made an appearance.

The play closes with the entrance of what seem to be diseased villagers, however after earlier
demonstrations of horror, their shadow-skulking is reminiscent more of zombies.
Although understandably a small-time production - albeit with an incredibly
impressive set design - I attended five days into its run and the cast still
didn't know their lines. If the old half cripple with the one line, the five word catalyst - his sole
reason to be on stage - doesn't know his role by then, then heavens knows what
preparations had been made for this challenging rendition.

Andrew Hodgson

News Shopper I 1 April 2009

Feedback

I saw this production on the same night as this so-called
critic [Andrew Hodgson, see above]. And I have no idea what production he saw. Unless of course he is the
guy that came in after the interval. If it is, his critique hold little sway.
The production was high quality and the acting was of an equally high standard,
yes there were some fluffed bits and some garbled delivery. But not as
devastating, or distracting as this 'critic' suggests. This critique is unfair and unbalanced and not a true reflection of this show.

Obviously this 'critic' is trying to make a name for himself by trying to be
objectionable in his reviews, however, there is little to substantiate his
review. Criticism of the costumes were inaccurate to say the least. To focus on the acting, Steve Padgham as Oedipus
portrayed a king whose neurosis culminated in a powerful climax, and the scenes between he and
Creon (which your reviewer missed by only attending the second half) were superbly acted by both
actors and were the highlight of the production.

As Jocasta, Eileen Warner rose well to the challenge of playing wife and mother
of the unfortunate Oedipus with great aplomb. The strongest performer for me was Richard Banks as Creon. His portrayal was
well timed, emotional and powerful, yet tender and touching when comforting the
two little princesses. The cast were superb throughout the play, from the leads down
to the youngest children, playing plague victims and other roles between them.

A production like this is always a challenge, and this production rose to many
of the challenges to provide an excellent night's entertainment. Well
done to everyone involved, and ignore the inaccurate, biased and obscure review on the website.

Anonymous I 2 April 2009

I would like to write a review of this
review [
see above
]. At first, I thought that this might be inappropriate, for I might
be accused of taking it personally. However, since all my lines were
in the first act, before the reviewer had even arrived on the
premises, how could I be?

I would start by saying that I do not blame Mr Hodgson for being late.
Some members of the cast were also delayed by transport problems in
London that night, but I do think that he could have let readers know
that his review was based on seeing the second act only. That might go
some way, if not all, towards explaining his ignorance. He arrived
after I had already left the stage, quite reasonably not expecting to
get into the auditorium before the interval, by which time several
others had completed their roles or the major portion of them.

I take each paragraph in turn, so as not to miss commenting on any of
Mr Hodgson’s masterpiece.

Mr Hodgson’s introductory paragraph probably falls into the category
of opinion so, although I consider it to be unfair, I will make no
other comment. His second is one sentence long and contains, possibly,
two errors. He says that the story is picked up from Oedipus’
ascension to the throne, whereas it actually starts from several years
later. But then how would he know that, he wasn’t there! Also, by
his specific reference to where our production picks up the story, he
appears to be ignorant of the fact that this is where Sophocles’
play actually begins.

The next three paragraphs are simply story summary, and are accurate
and well written. When he writes “Oedipus enters…”, he
presumably means for the second act, not having been there for the
first, and if he perceives the white suit to be “yachting attire”
then so be it. The first messenger’s tuxedo is representative of his
successful rising to be an ambassador for Corinth by contrast with his
former colleague, who remains a lowly shepherd in old age, by choice
as we are to discover. Jocasta’s costume is described as “an oddly
Grecian toga”. “Oddly” indeed! It is a 21st century evening
dress! Still, classic clothing can never go out of style, can it Mr
Hodgson?

The attendants/guards, about whom Mr Hodgson splits an infinitive,
indeed wore red waistcoats and did very well, considering problems we
had with various falling sick, rarely having the same two on
consecutive nights!

I am pleased that Mr Hodgson was
impressed by the set but surprised by his reference to “slack
acting”, which is at odds even with the opinions of some others who
simply don’t like the genre. To state that “not a single cast
member could remember their lines” is simply not true. I certainly
got all mine but then, of course, Mr Hodgson wasn’t there yet.
Furthermore, I was in the wings for much of the second act, during
which time I heard no fluffed lines and certainly nobody saying
“he’s bodged it again”. The second messenger/palace guard who
describes the royal couple’s fate gets no mention in the review but
definitely fluffed no lines.

Shock, horror! “Steve Padgham as Oedipus spluttered his lines…”
unlike the calm, lucid, coherent speech we have all come to expect
from a man who has just discovered that he murdered his father,
married his mother, watched his wife hang herself and gouged out his
own eyes before having his children taken away from him…Really,
Oedipus, pull yourself together man!

Oh, and let’s not forget that Mr
Hodgson only saw the portion of the play in which these things unfold,
and missed Oedipus’ calm appraisal of the situation at the beginning
and fiery argument with Creon at the end of the first act. At least Mr
Hodgson enjoyed the scene in which Oedipus blinds himself: something
which was observed by nobody else, since it occurred offstage. I think
he means the part where Oedipus re-enters having blinded himself. If
that entrance reminded the reviewer of a horror B-movie, then again, I
cannot gainsay his opinion.

The play closes with the return of the
plague victims. This was part of the symmetry of the piece, their
having come to Oedipus for help at the beginning but, of course, Mr
Hodgson wasn’t there for that. Briefly skipping forward to his final
paragraph, I can only guess at to whom he refers as “the old half
cripple with the one line” and, if I guess correctly, the stumbling,
fumbling speech (of considerably more than one line) was the
character’s reluctance to reveal what he knew would bring disaster.
It’s called acting, young man!

An enormous amount of preparation had
been made by a large cast and crew of people who do this while also,
mostly, in full time employment or education. I suppose it is true
that we were five days into our run but, there being no performance on
the Sunday, Mr Hodgson attended our fourth, not fifth night (he
wasn’t quite that late!) and, despite the inevitable occasional
lapse during a seven night run, all the cast knew their lines and
presented their roles “with professional ease”. This is attested
to by the director’s delight, and by feedback from various audience
members, including Classics or Drama teachers, and from journalists
(see
Kentish Times for alternative review).

I will put a couple of minor errors in
the review down to typography, but the construction of his penultimate
sentence/paragraph suggests that Mr Hodgson himself is
“understandably a small-time production”. He should not be so
harsh on himself: his liberal employment of misinformation and
misrepresentation should stand him in good stead for a glittering
career in journalism!

2 stars out of 5: that’s 40%; Mr
Hodgson saw 45 minutes of 120, which is 37.5%. We were better than
perfect!

Paul Friett | 2 April 2009

Regarding the comment system in use here; its a marvellous
thing giving voice to those who perhaps may not be given the means. However for
someone involved in a production to write a review of a review of their own play
seems to me somewhat absurd. My name is Kassim Qureshi and I am Andrew's 'colleague' of the night, as you are
fully aware I was there from the off. What you may not be aware of is that both
Andrew and I are Literature and Philosophy graduates (and therefore classics by
proxy), my particular penchant for theatre leading to my basing my further
studies thus.

It strikes me somewhat odd also to be given the opportunity to be as pretentious
and wordy as one wishes in a comment, however be restricted to laymans
[sic] and 400 in the actual review. I'm not sure what qualifies you to pass any judgement whatsoever, however our
opinion was consensus and I was with Andrew when he wrote the draft of this
article. Misdemeanors in type you would know if ever working in journalism, or
with the internet, tend to crop up through the passing of the article through
various pairs of hands and it seems simply petty for you to choose this as a
main push for your - well...what is it you are arguing other than the fact there
were two people reviewing this rather than one?

This review is written for people who have not come in to contact with Sophocles before in mind and time has been taken to edit it thus.
Your post is voided by your 'ignorance' as you so ironically choose in wording. Your cast knew it was
covered and therefore can take on board an educated and outside opinion
and grow from it. Either that or stew in their own frustration. Either way; so be it.
Good luck with future productions, from the opinion of an avid theatre goer and
an admirer of the classic tragedians, I can tell from your production and this amateurish retaliation - you're going to need it.

Kassim Qureshi I 2 April 2009

I saw this on the same night as your critic and we were
obviously watching two very different plays. Firstly can I say that I went to
see this because I was curious about the play and not expecting to enjoy it. I
thought it was a very good performance. I take it from the previous gentleman's
comments that the critic didn't see any of the first half of the play.
Wouldn't it have been more honest to admit this in his critique or perhaps he should have returned the next night to see
the half he missed? I think it wrong that he should slate a play when he has not
seen in its entirety.

I did not hear any comments from backstage and I was at the front of the
theatre, nor did I hear any prompts. If lines were fluffed may I remind your
critic that this is live theatre, I've seen long-running shows in the West End where the rather more 'professional' casts have messed up spectacularly and not
received the slating this troupe has. This was a good production, a fantastic set and very capable actors. It was a
joy to see so many young members of the theatre group on stage, the ages
ranging from 10 to 80+, and as for the plague victims - I can honestly
say I wouldn't have wanted to go near any of them.

Zapphod I 2 April 2009

I fully agree that it was absurd for me to write a review of a review of a play
in which I had been involved; I think I almost admitted that in my opening
sentence. What was more absurd, however, was that I felt inclined to do it,
since I have never responded to a review before. You see, what was even more absurd was that the review was written by
someone who had not seen my part in it. And, if Andrew was relying on your
advice with regard to the first act, you appear to have misled him for him to write that
none of the cast knew their lines. Furthermore, that was not true of the second
act either. I fully respect your superior education but do not consider it to be relevant
here.

I am sorry if you feel that it was rather long for a comment and, to be honest,
probably agree with you. As for its pretentiousness, yes it was, but those who know me would read it in
the good humour in which it was intended. That's the problem with the written word: it so easily causes offence, without
the smile or wink to convey its intent. ;)

Certainly, I do not feel qualified to judge your opinions or anyone else's,
but do not believe that I have passed judgement on any opinion expressed, having
specifically acknowledged difference of opinion and only taken issue with
misrepresentation of fact. That was my main push (I specifically excused any
typo misdemeanors): that most of the negativity was not opinion but misinformation and misrepresentation. I am
sorry to repeat, but it simply is not true that we did not know our lines or
that our preparation was inadequate. If you hated the costumes and even the
acting, that is fine; it is your opinion and I conceded as much. But please do
not undermine what was achieved and appreciated by many others.

You explain that the review was written for those with no previous knowledge of
Sophocles and, as such Andrew's three paragraphs of plot summary were excellent:
concise and accurate. If only Sophocles had been so concise we
wouldn't have had to learn all those lines!

I am not sure to what you refer as my 'ignorance', but we are always happy to
receive constructive criticism. However, destructive criticism is, funnily enough, destructive and I hope that
my response, and the laughter it has generated, will help some of the younger
members not to be upset by the review. And as for our having to take the bad
reviews with the good, and the amateurishness of my response, therein you explain my right to write: you and
Andrew are employed to put your views in writing and into the public domain and
must take the criticism as well as the payment and kudos if, and I'm
sure when, due.

Finally, thank you for your wishes of good luck for the future. As a small
amateur theatre, despite the generally good and appreciative audiences and the
Arts Council awards, we do indeed need it.

Paul Friett I 3 April 2009

Just to say that we are regular theatre goers both to our
local amateur theatres and professional ones and we went to see this production
on the Tuesday evening. I don't know which night the critic went but what a
shame he didn't go on the same night as us. We thoroughly enjoyed the show and production - if enjoy can be the right word
to use for a play such as this! Yes, there were some fluffed lines but I have to
disagree about slack acting. A lot of hard work goes into all shows whether amateur or professional and it is
always very disappointing when they are slated in this manner, particularly when
so unfairly. I can only assume that having had such a horrendous journey to the
theatre his views were coloured.